Research Article
BibTex RIS Cite

“CARE” AT THE INTERSECTION OF ETHICS AND POLITICS

Year 2020, Volume: 8 Issue: 16, 66 - 86, 15.10.2020
https://doi.org/10.20304/humanitas.772821

Abstract

After its emergence in the 1980’s, care ethics has been subjected to many criticisms and has been constantly revised in the light of these criticisms. In this paper I will basically focus on two of these criticisms: the criticism that care ethics, to the extent that it erodes the concept of autonomy, paves the way for the exploitation of the subjects involved, and the criticism of parochialism. I will then specify the ways to respond to these criticisms in a satisfactory manner: understanding autonomy not as a property of an individual but as relational and contextual, integrating justice and care based approaches, and understanding care not as an emotion, but as a practice. Understanding care in such a way would enable us to grasp it also as a political concept which can be extended to the public sphere, rather than just an ethical concept limited only to the private sphere.

References

  • Brennan, S. (2010). Feminist ethics. J. Skorupski (Ed.), The Routledge companion to ethics içinde (s. 514-523). London & New York: Routledge.
  • Collins, S. (2015). The core of care ethics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Davion, V. (1993). Autonomy, integrity, and care. Social Theory and Practice, 19(2), 161-182.
  • Gilligan, C. (2003). In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Orijinal çalışma basım tarihi 1982).
  • Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: personal, political, and global. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Hoagland, S. L. (1990). Some concerns about Nel Noddings’ Caring. Hypatia, 5(1), 109-114.
  • İhtimam (t.b.). Türk Dil Kurumu güncel Türkçe sözlük içinde. https://sozluk.gov.tr/
  • Kohlberg, L. (1982). A reply to Owen Flanagan and some comments on the Puka-Goodpaster exchange. Ethics, 92(3), 513-528.
  • Lindemann, H. (2019). An invitation to feminist ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Mackenzie, C. ve Stoljar, N. (2000). Introduction: autonomy refigured. C. Mackenzie ve N. Stoljar (Ed.), Relational autonomy: feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self içinde (s. 3-31). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: a relational approach to ethics & moral education (Gözden geçirilmiş 2. baskı). Berkeley & London: University of California Press. (Orijinal çalışma basım tarihi 1984).
  • Sevenhuijsen, S. (1998). Citizenship and the ethics of care: feminist considerations on justice, morality and politics. (L. Savage, Çev.). New York: Routledge. (Orijinal çalışma basım tarihi 1996).
  • Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: a political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.

ETİK İLE POLİTİKANIN KESİŞİMİNDE “İHTİMAM”

Year 2020, Volume: 8 Issue: 16, 66 - 86, 15.10.2020
https://doi.org/10.20304/humanitas.772821

Abstract

İhtimam etiği 1980’lerde ortaya çıkışının ardından pek çok eleştiriye tabi tutulmuş ve bu eleştiriler ışığında sürekli revize edilmiştir. Bu yazıda temel olarak bu eleştirilerden iki tanesine odaklanacağım: İhtimam etiğinin otonomi kavramını dışarıda bıraktığı ölçüde tarafların istismarına zemin hazırladığına yönelik eleştiri ve cemaatçilik eleştirisi. Bu eleştirilere tatminkar bir yanıt vermenin yollarını ise şu şekilde sıralayacağım: Otonomiyi bir bireyin özelliği olarak anlamaktansa onun ilişkisel ve bağlamsal olduğunu kabul etmek, adalet temelli yaklaşım ile ihtimam temelli yaklaşımı bütünleştirmek ve ihtimamı bir duygu olarak değil, fakat bir pratik olarak kavramak. İhtimamı bu şekilde anlamak, onu yalnızca özel alana dair etik bir kavram olmaktan çıkarıp kamusal alana da genişletilebilecek politik bir kavram haline getirmenin de yolunu açacaktır.

References

  • Brennan, S. (2010). Feminist ethics. J. Skorupski (Ed.), The Routledge companion to ethics içinde (s. 514-523). London & New York: Routledge.
  • Collins, S. (2015). The core of care ethics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Davion, V. (1993). Autonomy, integrity, and care. Social Theory and Practice, 19(2), 161-182.
  • Gilligan, C. (2003). In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. (Orijinal çalışma basım tarihi 1982).
  • Held, V. (2006). The ethics of care: personal, political, and global. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Hoagland, S. L. (1990). Some concerns about Nel Noddings’ Caring. Hypatia, 5(1), 109-114.
  • İhtimam (t.b.). Türk Dil Kurumu güncel Türkçe sözlük içinde. https://sozluk.gov.tr/
  • Kohlberg, L. (1982). A reply to Owen Flanagan and some comments on the Puka-Goodpaster exchange. Ethics, 92(3), 513-528.
  • Lindemann, H. (2019). An invitation to feminist ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Mackenzie, C. ve Stoljar, N. (2000). Introduction: autonomy refigured. C. Mackenzie ve N. Stoljar (Ed.), Relational autonomy: feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self içinde (s. 3-31). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: a relational approach to ethics & moral education (Gözden geçirilmiş 2. baskı). Berkeley & London: University of California Press. (Orijinal çalışma basım tarihi 1984).
  • Sevenhuijsen, S. (1998). Citizenship and the ethics of care: feminist considerations on justice, morality and politics. (L. Savage, Çev.). New York: Routledge. (Orijinal çalışma basım tarihi 1996).
  • Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: a political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.
There are 13 citations in total.

Details

Primary Language Turkish
Journal Section Tüm Sayı
Authors

Karun Çekem 0000-0003-1115-4382

Publication Date October 15, 2020
Published in Issue Year 2020 Volume: 8 Issue: 16

Cite

APA Çekem, K. (2020). ETİK İLE POLİTİKANIN KESİŞİMİNDE “İHTİMAM”. HUMANITAS - Uluslararası Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(16), 66-86. https://doi.org/10.20304/humanitas.772821